2020...

AOC on Dem Debate: Like High School Kids Who Didn’t Seem to Read the Book

x3gNHwhb-720.jpg

PAM KEY 27 Jun 2019

Wednesday on CBS’s “The Late Show,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said “some folks” during the MSNBC Democratic candidates’ debate were like high school students who “didn’t seem like they read the book.”
 
WATCH: Warren Refuses To Rule Out Government Confiscating Guns
elizabeth_warren.jpg

Joe Raedle/Getty Images


ryan_saavedra.jpg

By RYAN SAAVEDRA
@REALSAAVEDRA
June 26, 2019
35.4k views


Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren refused to rule out whether she would have the government go door-to-door and confiscate semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding Americans.


Daily Wire TV

Loaded: 42.54%


Duration 1:38
Watch: AG Bill Barr Plays Bagpipes



NBC's Chuck Todd asked Warren the question, and, when she dodged answering it, he pressed her about it again.

"You didn't address, do you think the federal government needs to go and figure out a way to get the guns?" Todd again pressed Warren.
 
Warren: Eliminate Private Insurance, No Restrictions On Abortion
warren_1.jpg

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images



By RYAN SAAVEDRA
@REALSAAVEDRA
June 26, 2019
14k views


Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday night that if she becomes president that she will eliminate private insurance, force everyone on government healthcare, and will not support any restrictions on abortion.


Daily Wire TV

Loaded: 71.66%


Duration 0:39
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker Signs Abortion Bill, Making Procedure A 'Fundamental Right'



"Many people watching at home have health insurance coverage through their employer," NBC's Lester Holt said. "Who here would abolish their private insurance in favor of a government-run plan?"

Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio both raised their hands.

In May, The Washington Post reported that "over and over again, roughly 7 out of every 10 Americans report that they’re fairly satisfied with the quality of their personal coverage."

WATCH:





Ryan Saavedra

✔@RealSaavedra
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1144055708100395008

Far-left Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren says that she will eliminate the private health insurance and will force everyone onto government-run healthcare

70% of Americans say they like their current coverage


642
6:31 PM - Jun 26, 2019

375 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Later, when asked if she supported any restricts on abortion, Warren refused to answer.
 
WATCH: Beto Dodges 70% Tax Rate Question, Starts Speaking Spanish
screen_shot_2019-06-26_at_9.21.46_pm.png

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images



By AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
@AMANDAPRESTO
June 26, 2019
42.8k views


During the first primary Democratic debate on Wednesday night, failed senate candidate Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke dodged his first question of the night, which concerned his potential support of a 70% margin tax rate.


Daily Wire TV

Loaded: 59.06%


Duration 1:38
Watch: AG Bill Barr Plays Bagpipes



“Some Democrats want marginal, individual tax rate of 70% of the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year,” asked debate moderator Savannah Guthrie. “Would you support that, and if not, what would be your top individual rate be?”

“This economy has got to work for everyone, and right now, we know that it isn’t,” O’Rourke sidestepped. “And it’s gonna take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.”

Taking up his limited time, the Democrat then started speaking in Spanish. Here's what he said, translated via Time magazine:

“We need to include every person in the success of this economy. But if we want to do that, we have to include every person in our democracy. Every vote needs representation and every voice needs to be heard.”

“Right now we have a system that favors those who can pay for access and outcomes, that’s how you explain an economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest,” O'Rourke continued in English. “A $2 trillion tax cut that favored corporations while they were sitting on record piles of cash for the very wealthiest in this country at a time of historic wealth inequality."

"A new democracy that is revived because we have returned power to the people; no PACs, no gerrymandering, automatic and same-day registration to bring in more voters and a newer voting rights act to get rid of the barriers that are in place, now," spouted O'Rourke. "That’s how we each have a voice in our democracy and make this economy work for everybody."

“That’s time, sir,” Guthrie notified the candidate, offering him 10 seconds to answer the question he dodged.

“I would support a tax code and tax rate that is fair to everyone,” O’Rourke again sidestepped.

“Tax capital at the same rate that you tax ordinary income; take that corporate tax rate up to 28%, you would generate the revenues you need to pay for the programs we are talking about,” he added before his time was up.

WATCH:





Ryan Saavedra

✔@RealSaavedra
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1144051117585600512

Savannah Guthrie asks Beto O'Rourke if he would support a 70% marginal tax rate

O'Rourke refuses to answer the question and starts speaking Spanish

Guthrie presses him again

O'Rourke again refuses to answer


5,875
6:13 PM - Jun 26, 2019

3,281 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Twitter reacted accordingly:


Matt Walsh

✔@MattWalshBlog
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1144050177931710464

Moderator: “Mr. O’Rourke, what do you think about this specific tax plan?”

Beto: “Well you see I know Spanish.”

Moderator: “Yeah but the tax plan...”

Beto: “Hola como estas”#DemocraticDebate


39.6K
6:09 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

8,657 people are talking about this




Kassy Dillon

✔@KassyDillon
https://twitter.com/KassyDillon/status/1144057346085142528

This is just a contest of who can speak the most Spanish...


851
6:38 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

130 people are talking about this




Dan McLaughlin

✔@baseballcrank
https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1144049418003451904

Top tax rate question. Beto: If I answer in Spanish, it won't be used in ads against me.


243
6:06 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

47 people are talking about this




Karol Markowicz

✔@karol
https://twitter.com/karol/status/1144049324545970181

Lol, Beto switching to Spanish for no reason.


289
6:06 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

48 people are talking about this





Matt Walsh

✔@MattWalshBlog
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1144049584127336453

Beto, summarized: “Hey look I know Spanish.”


430
6:07 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

74 people are talking about this
 
The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.—Von Mises
 
Sheriff Joe said:
WATCH: Beto Dodges 70% Tax Rate Question, Starts Speaking Spanish
screen_shot_2019-06-26_at_9.21.46_pm.png

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images



By AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
@AMANDAPRESTO
June 26, 2019
42.8k views


During the first primary Democratic debate on Wednesday night, failed senate candidate Robert ‘Beto’ O’Rourke dodged his first question of the night, which concerned his potential support of a 70% margin tax rate.


Daily Wire TV

Loaded: 59.06%


Duration 1:38
Watch: AG Bill Barr Plays Bagpipes



“Some Democrats want marginal, individual tax rate of 70% of the very highest earners, those making more than $10 million a year,” asked debate moderator Savannah Guthrie. “Would you support that, and if not, what would be your top individual rate be?”

“This economy has got to work for everyone, and right now, we know that it isn’t,” O’Rourke sidestepped. “And it’s gonna take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.”

Taking up his limited time, the Democrat then started speaking in Spanish. Here's what he said, translated via Time magazine:

“We need to include every person in the success of this economy. But if we want to do that, we have to include every person in our democracy. Every vote needs representation and every voice needs to be heard.”

“Right now we have a system that favors those who can pay for access and outcomes, that’s how you explain an economy that is rigged to corporations and to the very wealthiest,” O'Rourke continued in English. “A $2 trillion tax cut that favored corporations while they were sitting on record piles of cash for the very wealthiest in this country at a time of historic wealth inequality."

"A new democracy that is revived because we have returned power to the people; no PACs, no gerrymandering, automatic and same-day registration to bring in more voters and a newer voting rights act to get rid of the barriers that are in place, now," spouted O'Rourke. "That’s how we each have a voice in our democracy and make this economy work for everybody."

“That’s time, sir,” Guthrie notified the candidate, offering him 10 seconds to answer the question he dodged.

“I would support a tax code and tax rate that is fair to everyone,” O’Rourke again sidestepped.

“Tax capital at the same rate that you tax ordinary income; take that corporate tax rate up to 28%, you would generate the revenues you need to pay for the programs we are talking about,” he added before his time was up.

WATCH:





Ryan Saavedra

✔@RealSaavedra

Savannah Guthrie asks Beto O'Rourke if he would support a 70% marginal tax rate

O'Rourke refuses to answer the question and starts speaking Spanish

Guthrie presses him again

O'Rourke again refuses to answer


5,875
6:13 PM - Jun 26, 2019

3,281 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Twitter reacted accordingly:


Matt Walsh

✔@MattWalshBlog

Moderator: “Mr. O’Rourke, what do you think about this specific tax plan?”

Beto: “Well you see I know Spanish.”

Moderator: “Yeah but the tax plan...”

Beto: “Hola como estas”#DemocraticDebate


39.6K
6:09 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

8,657 people are talking about this




Kassy Dillon

✔@KassyDillon

This is just a contest of who can speak the most Spanish...


851
6:38 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

130 people are talking about this




Dan McLaughlin

✔@baseballcrank

Top tax rate question. Beto: If I answer in Spanish, it won't be used in ads against me.


243
6:06 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

47 people are talking about this




Karol Markowicz

✔@karol

Lol, Beto switching to Spanish for no reason.


289
6:06 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

48 people are talking about this





Matt Walsh

✔@MattWalshBlog

Beto, summarized: “Hey look I know Spanish.”


430
6:07 PM - Jun 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

74 people are talking about this
Click to expand...
what a circus it was last night. #freehillary.
 
Socialism
But, of course, the practical political conclusions which people drew from this dogma were not uniform. One group declared that there is but one way to wipe out these evils, namely to abolish capitalism entirely. They advocate the substitution of public control of the means of production for private control. They aim at the establishment of what is called socialism, communism, planning, or state capitalism. All these terms signify the same thing. No longer should the consumers, by their buying and abstention from buying, determine what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. Henceforth a central authority alone should direct all production activities. —Mises
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Socialism
But, of course, the practical political conclusions which people drew from this dogma were not uniform. One group declared that there is but one way to wipe out these evils, namely to abolish capitalism entirely. They advocate the substitution of public control of the means of production for private control. They aim at the establishment of what is called socialism, communism, planning, or state capitalism. All these terms signify the same thing. No longer should the consumers, by their buying and abstention from buying, determine what should be produced, in what quantity and of what quality. Henceforth a central authority alone should direct all production activities. —Mises
Click to expand...
Ok . . . point being?
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Ok . . . point being?
Click to expand...
The fundamental dogma of all brands of socialism and communism is that the market economy or capitalism is a system that hurts the vital interests of the immense majority of people for the sole benefit of a small minority of rugged individualists. It condemns the masses to progressing impoverishment. It brings about misery, slavery, oppression, degradation and exploitation of the working men, while it enriches a class of idle and useless parasites.

This doctrine was not the work of Karl Marx. It had been developed long before Marx entered the scene. Its most successful propagators were not the Marxian authors, but such men as Carlyle and Ruskin, the British Fabians, the German professors and the American Institutionalists. And it is a very significant fact that the correctness of this dogma was contested only by a few economists who were very soon silenced and barred from access to the universities, the press, the leadership of political parties and, first of all, public office. Public opinion by and large accepted the condemnation of capitalism without any reservation.-Mises
 
The benefits of Capitalism are rarely equitably distributed. Wealth tends to accrue to a small % of the population. This means that demand for luxury goods is often limited to a small % of the workforce. The nature of capitalism can cause this inequality to keep increasing. This occurs for a few reasons

Inherited wealth. Capitalists can pass on their assets to their children. Therefore, capitalism doesn’t cause equality of opportunity, but those born in privilege are much more likely to do well because of better education, upbringing and inherited wealth.

Interest from assets. If capitalists are able to purchase assets – bonds, house prices, shares, they gain interest, rent and dividends. They can use these proceeds to buy more assets and wealth – creating a wealth multiplier effect. Those without wealth get left behind and may see house prices rise faster than inflation.

The economist Thomas Piketty wrote an influential book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which emphasised this element of capitalism to increase inequality. As a general rule, Picketty argues wealth grows faster than economic output. He uses expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate.)
 
Booter said:
The benefits of Capitalism are rarely equitably distributed. Wealth tends to accrue to a small % of the population. This means that demand for luxury goods is often limited to a small % of the workforce. The nature of capitalism can cause this inequality to keep increasing. This occurs for a few reasons

Inherited wealth. Capitalists can pass on their assets to their children. Therefore, capitalism doesn’t cause equality of opportunity, but those born in privilege are much more likely to do well because of better education, upbringing and inherited wealth.

Interest from assets. If capitalists are able to purchase assets – bonds, house prices, shares, they gain interest, rent and dividends. They can use these proceeds to buy more assets and wealth – creating a wealth multiplier effect. Those without wealth get left behind and may see house prices rise faster than inflation.

The economist Thomas Piketty wrote an influential book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which emphasised this element of capitalism to increase inequality. As a general rule, Picketty argues wealth grows faster than economic output. He uses expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate.)
Click to expand...
Luxury increases while the lifestyle gap closes.
 
Booter said:
The economist Thomas Piketty wrote an influential book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which emphasised this element of capitalism to increase inequality. As a general rule, Picketty argues wealth grows faster than economic output. He uses expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate.)
Click to expand...
Wait for it.........Piketty just described what happened when the Fed bailed out the 1 percenters . The 1 percenters were heavily invested in Mortgage Backed Securities. When the housing market took a dive, the government bailed out the 1% through QE or “r” if you like. But the fed didnʻt add an equivalent amount of goods and services or “g” if you like to the economy. Lowering the interest rates prior to the crash had the same increase in wealth effect that Piketty described
 
Interventionism, Allegedly a Middle-of-the-Road Policy

A second group seems to be less radical. They reject socialism no less than capitalism. They recommend a third system, which, as they say, is as far from capitalism as it is from socialism, which as a third system of society's economic organization, stands midway between the two other systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each. This third system is known as the system of interventionism. In the terminology of American politics it is often referred to as the middle-of-the-road policy. What makes this third system popular with many people is the particular way they choose to look upon the problems involved. As they see it, two classes, the capitalists and entrepreneurs on the one hand and the wage earners on the other hand, are arguing about the distribution of the yield of capital and entrepreneurial activities. Both parties are claiming the whole cake for themselves. Now, suggest these mediators, let us make peace by splitting the disputed value equally between the two classes. The State as an impartial arbiter should interfere, and should curb the greed of the capitalists and assign a part of the profits to the working classes. Thus it will be possible to dethrone the moloch capitalism without enthroning the moloch of totalitarian socialism.

Yet this mode of judging the issue is entirely fallacious. The antagonism between capitalism and socialism is not a dispute about the distribution of booty. It is a controversy about which two schemes for society's economic organization, capitalism or socialism, is conducive to the better attainment of those ends which all people consider as the ultimate aim of activities commonly called economic, viz., the best possible supply of useful commodities and services. Capitalism wants to attain these ends by private enterprise and initiative, subject to the supremacy of the public's buying and abstention from buying on the market. The socialists want to substitute the unique plan of a central authority for the plans of the various individuals. They want to put in place of what Marx called the "anarchy of production" the exclusive monopoly of the government. The antagonism does not refer to the mode of distributing a fixed amount of amenities. It refers to the mode of producing all those goods which people want to enjoy.

The conflict of the two principles is irreconcilable and does not allow for any compromise. Control is indivisible. Either the consumers' demand as manifested on the market decides for what purposes and how the factors of production should be employed, or the government takes care of these matters. There is nothing that could mitigate the opposition between these two contradictory principles. They preclude each other. Interventionism is not a golden mean between capitalism and socialism. It is the design of a third system of society's economic organization and must be appreciated as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top